Lawsuit: In Session ScaryHacker1 v. slapout [2026] DCR 58

N

nonMaciej

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
nonMaciej
nonMaciej
Attorney
Joined
May 24, 2026
Messages
14
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION





ScaryHacker1

Plaintiff



v.



slapout

Defendant



COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:



WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 27th of May 2026 the Defendant, slapout, and the Plaintiff, ScaryHacker1, reached a verbal agreement for the buy/sale of a golden drill. After the fulfillment of the agreement by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to perform their contractual obligation and has not interacted with the plaintiff since.



I. PARTIES

ScaryHacker1 - Plaintiff
slapout- Defendant



II. FACTS

On May 27, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a legally binding verbal contract for the purchase and sale of one Golden Drill. The terms of the agreement were explicitly established as follows:

●Total Consideration: $10500

● Payment Structure: The Plaintiff agreed to pay 50% of the total price upfront. The remaining 50% was to be remitted upon the successful delivery of the Golden Drill to the Plaintiff.

● Performance: The Plaintiff successfully performed their initial contractual obligation by transferring $5250 to the Defendant on May 27, 2026.



III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Following the receipt of the initial payment, the Defendant failed to fulfill the core obligation of the agreement, the delivery of the Golden Drill. Instead, the Defendant immediately vacated the area and has since failed to communicate or perform, thereby constituting a unilateral breach of contract.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:



1. $5250 in Compensatory Damages to recover losses paid to the defendant

2. $1500 in Punitivate Damges for outrageous conduct under the RCCA

3. 30% of the total awarded damages in legal fees



Evidence: Untitled - Clipped Minecraft with Medal.tv



By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.



DATED: This 27 of May 2026
 
Last edited:
Proof of Representation:
1779891644332.png
 

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

The Federal Court, upon reviewing this filing, sees that this appears to be a minor civil case with damages of under $120,000 sought. Such cases would be in the original jurisdiction of the District Court (see: Const. 16(1)(e)).

The Federal Court is thus contemplating whether or not to remand this case to the District Court. We wish to seek further information from Plaintiff in order to further develop the record of this case before issuing the contemplated remand. To do this, we issue this Order to Show Cause (see: RoFC, Section 10).

Within 48 hours, Plaintiff shall brief the Court in response to the following question(s):

  1. What Court has original jurisdiction over this case?
  2. Why does the Court identified in the answer to the first question have original jurisdiction over this case?
Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause within 48 hours of the time of this post shall result in a Contempt of Court charge.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
I respectfully acknowledge the Court's guidance regarding the proper jurisdiction for this civil action. I am prepared to comply with the Court’s decision to remand this case to the District Court to ensure the matter is handled in the appropriate forum.

I apologize for the inconvenience. It was my mistake, and I will be more careful about filing with the correct court in the future.
 

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - REMOVAL OF CASE FROM THE FEDERAL COURT

The Federal Court finds that original jurisdiction for this case lies in the District Court. The Court REMOVES this case from our docket and places the case on the docket of the District Court for proper consideration in a Court that has original jurisdiction to hear it.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

Writ of Summons


Quickrip (@quickrip) is ordered to appear before the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the case of ScaryHacker1 v. quickrip [2025] DCR 58.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

Motion



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honour,

The Defendant has changed their name since proceedings have been initiated ("P-001"). I am requesting to change all references to their current name.



 

Attachments

  • pt04jd6.png
    pt04jd6.png
    85.4 KB · Views: 33
nonMaciej said:

Motion



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honour,

The Defendant has changed their name since proceedings have been initiated ("P-001"). I am requesting to change all references to their current name.



Click to expand...
Granted, you may amend your complaint. Note that during discovery, you do not need to motion and may simply declare what you have changed.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to enter a Default Judgment against the Defendant for failure to file an Answer to the Complaint within the given period of 48 hours.

  1. The deadline for the Defendant to file an answer was 02.06.2026 8:05PM (UTC+2)
  2. As of the filing of this motion, the Defendant has failed respond.

 
Last edited:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC DEFENDER.

As the defendant has fallen into default judgment, the Court orders that the public defender program shall represent the Defendant, as available through the Public Defense Policy, in order to preserve the Defendant's right to representation. (Const. Part V Section 35.9)

The Public Defender assigned to this case shall make themself known within 72 hours.

 
aubunny said:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC DEFENDER.

As the defendant has fallen into default judgment, the Court orders that the public defender program shall represent the Defendant, as available through the Public Defense Policy, in order to preserve the Defendant's right to representation. (Const. Part V Section 35.9)

The Public Defender assigned to this case shall make themself known within 72 hours.

Click to expand...
I have assigned @Mask3D_WOLF
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
The defense is currently in the process of settling out of court with the plaintiff. We request a brief recess.
Click to expand...
The plaintiff and defense have come to an agreement out of court. We request a sidebar to discuss the logistics of this with Your Honor and us.
 
Hello all, I will be taking over this case as the presiding judicial officer.

To ensure the Court has an accurate understanding of the current procedural posture, each party is directed to submit a brief status filing.

The filing should be concise and should address the following:
  1. A short summary of where the case currently stands;
  2. Any motions, requests, deadlines, or other matters currently pending before the Court;
  3. Any procedural issues, disputes, or objections that require attention;
  4. If there are any oddities in this case, such as joinder or counterclaims;
  5. Any other information the party believes is necessary or pertinent for the Court to be aware of at this stage.
The purpose of this filing is not to reargue the merits of the case, but to assist the Court in efficiently assuming management of the matter.

Each party shall submit their status brief within the next 72 hours. Please keep the filing focused and organized. All other outstanding issues are currently tolled.

Thank you,
Matthew100x
Associate Justice
 

Brief



BRIEF
1. A short summary of where the case currently stands:

The plaintiff and defense have come to an agreement out of court. A sidebar was requested to discuss the logistics of this agreement. The sidebar was opened but was closed shortly after with the resignation of the previous magistrate.


2. Any motions, requests, deadlines, or other matters currently pending before the Court:

Yes. The previously requested sidebar (Post #19) was cut short with the resignation of the previous magistrate. We would like to request another sidebar to discuss the logistics of the agreement made out of court by the plaintiff and defense.

3. Any procedural issues, disputes, or objections that require attention:

I don't believe there are any issues the court needs to address.

4. If there are any oddities in this case, such as joinder or counterclaims:

I don't believe there are any oddities in this case.

5. Any other information the party believes is necessary or pertinent for the Court to be aware of at this stage:

I don't believe there is any other information the party believes is necessary or pertinent the court needs to be aware of.

 
Last edited:
My apologies, I did not get a notification from this case.

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BRIEF

  1. The plaintiff and defense have come to a settlement agreement out of court. We are awaiting enforcement of this/adjournment of the case.
  2. We currently have an active sidebar.
  3. Enforcement of the agreed-upon settlement due to the unresponsiveness of the defendant.
  4. None
  5. None

 
Your Honor,

As lead Plaintiff in 2026 [FCR] 52, in which an emergency injunction has been levied against Defendant’s assets, I respectfully request leave of the Court to intervene as a party here.
 
Matthew100x said:
Why do we need to go into sidebar for a settlement agreement? Has the parties reached a settlement on this matter?
Click to expand...
The parties have reached a settlement of:
$5250 in Compensatory Damages
$150 in Nominal Damages
30% of the total awarded damages in legal fees

The previous sidebar was to determine how an out-of-court settlement would be enforced with an unresponsive defendant represented by a Public Defender. We had come to the conclusion that it is within the court's authority to order the enforcement of an out-of-court settlement in circumstances like these. If the current court is on the same page, we would not need a sidebar, and we move for the adjournment of this case under these terms.
 
Your Honor,

I belive the defendant, slapout, is an alternate account of yatblue. According to Judge Muggy21 in Multiman155 et. al v. slapout [2026] FCR 52 staff confirmed that:

1. quickrip = slapout
2. slapout = slapout
3. yatblue = slapout and yatblue

1782227297532.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top